ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

TDS U/s 194C of the Act. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer made disallowance of Rs. 1,62,33,061/- U/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 13. The assessee challenged the action of the Assessing Officer before the ld. CIT(A) and contended that the provisions of Section 194C(6

ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

TDS U/s 194C of the Act. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer made disallowance of Rs. 1,62,33,061/- U/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 13. The assessee challenged the action of the Assessing Officer before the ld. CIT(A) and contended that the provisions of Section 194C(6

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

TDS U/s 194C of the Act. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer made disallowance of Rs. 1,62,33,061/- U/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 13. The assessee challenged the action of the Assessing Officer before the ld. CIT(A) and contended that the provisions of Section 194C(6

ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

TDS U/s 194C of the Act. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer made disallowance of Rs. 1,62,33,061/- U/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 13. The assessee challenged the action of the Assessing Officer before the ld. CIT(A) and contended that the provisions of Section 194C(6

KAMLESH KUMAR JAIN,PACHPAHAR vs. DCIT-ACIT CIRCLE-2, KOTA

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant stands allowed with no orders as to cost

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

6 KAMLESH KUMAR JAIN VS DCIT,CIRCLE-2, KOTA turnover does not include the sales effected on behalf of principals & only commission (gross) has to be considered for the purpose of Income tax section 44AB (copy available at PB page 60-61). D. Therefore TDS

DEVIKA BUILDESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

TDS has been claimed, this objective stand fulfilled. Disallowance of expense solely on the ground of non-compliance of notice u/s 133(6) is not legally sustainable. 6. The contention of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition made by the Ld. AO, on the ground that “notices under Section

STATE BANK OF INDIA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty so levied under section 271C is hereby directed to be deleted

section 6 State Bank of India vs. ACIT (TDS) (1) of section 272AA or section 272B or sub-section (1) of section

INFOOBJECTS SOFTWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1499/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Infoobjects Software India Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Private Ltd. Income Tax, 5-E Patrikayan, 3rd Floor Jhalana Circle-04, Jaipur Institutional Area, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AABCI8663B अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से/ Assessee by : Sh. Naman Maloo, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by

TDS under the provisions of section 194C of the I.T. Act, 1961 as this falls under contractual payment. Hence, 30% of the catering expenditure of Rs.75,15,792/- was disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 3.2 The company also paid business promotion expenditure of Rs. 6

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Ergo we decide accordingly, and the additional ground no. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed. 62. Ground No. 6 (Additional Ground no. 2) of the assessee’s appeal raised by the ld. A/R of the assessee is in relation to allowability of interest paid on late deposit of TDS

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Ergo we decide accordingly, and the additional ground no. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed. 62. Ground No. 6 (Additional Ground no. 2) of the assessee’s appeal raised by the ld. A/R of the assessee is in relation to allowability of interest paid on late deposit of TDS

RADHAKISHAN BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

6,26,68,011 under section 68 of the Act as unexplained credits disregarding the various evidences filed by the Assessee proving that the sub-contract work was awarded and executed by the Assessee and the fact that Dineshchandra R Agarwal Infracon Pvt Ltd had deducted TDS

RADHAKISHNA BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

6,26,68,011 under section 68 of the Act as unexplained credits disregarding the various evidences filed by the Assessee proving that the sub-contract work was awarded and executed by the Assessee and the fact that Dineshchandra R Agarwal Infracon Pvt Ltd had deducted TDS

INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S EID MOHAMMAD NIZAMUDDIN , TONK

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

TDS-3 Vs M/s Eid Mohammad Nizamuddin this Tribunal in assessee's own case for the assessment year 2009-10 vide order dated 29.08.2018 in ITA. No. 316/JP/2018 in para 6 as under: "6. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. There is no dispute that Section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S EID MOHAMMAD NIZAMUDDIN , TONK

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

TDS-3 Vs M/s Eid Mohammad Nizamuddin this Tribunal in assessee's own case for the assessment year 2009-10 vide order dated 29.08.2018 in ITA. No. 316/JP/2018 in para 6 as under: "6. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. There is no dispute that Section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S EID MOHAMMAD NIZAMUDDIN , TONK

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

TDS-3 Vs M/s Eid Mohammad Nizamuddin this Tribunal in assessee's own case for the assessment year 2009-10 vide order dated 29.08.2018 in ITA. No. 316/JP/2018 in para 6 as under: "6. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. There is no dispute that Section

ACIT, KOTA vs. VASTUVEDIK COLONIZERS & DEVLOPERS PVT. LTD., KOTA

In the result, ground no. (ii) of the revenue is dismissed and ground no

Bench: The Hon’Ble High Court Was Disallowance

TDS which is a bonafide decision of the assessee that the provisions of section 194C is applicable in respect of the said payment made under sub-contract, then even if the AO did not accept this decision of the assessee, the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) cannot be invoked due to the reason of difference of opinion

M/S GOLD CREATIONS,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL PROCESSING CELL-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

TDS statement under section 200A of the Act. At the outset, we note that this Bench in the case of Geeta Star Hotels & Resorts Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (supra) while considering an identical issue has held in para 6

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

6) were also issued to M/s Orchid Trexim Pvt Ltd on 09.07.2013 & 05.10.2018 whose account was report as suspicious but the same were returned unserved by the postal authorities with remarks ‘ not known’ / ‘moved’. Thereafter, KYC of M/s Orchid Trexim Pvt Ltd was called for from the UCO Bank and it is noticed that the address given